Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Use this and check on lake superior historical data | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:43:05 04/16/07 Mon In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Link from US Army corp of engineers will not link but" on 13:35:32 04/16/07 Mon The US army Corp of Eng. will not let me link their site.....probably some terrorist thing, so use this and follow it to the numbers: http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/superior.html >You should be able to go to this page and create the >table of numbers: > > >href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/great >lakeswaterlevels/historicdata/greatlakeshydrographs/">h >ttp://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/greatlakeswa >terlevels/historicdata/greatlakeshydrographs/ > > > > > >> >>href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_plugins/Programs/ >H >>istoricGreatLakesLevels/pages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1& >Y >>earID=19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34, >3 >>5,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,5 >3 >>,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71 >, >>72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89, >9 >>0,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,1 >0 >>6,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0&M >e >>an=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOKEN=60825872">http://www.lre.usa >c >>e.army.mil/_plugins/Programs/HistoricGreatLakesLevels/ >p >>ages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1&YearID=19,20,21,22,23,24, >2 >>5,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,4 >3 >>,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 >, >>62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79, >8 >>0,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,9 >8 >>,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5, >6 >>,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0&Mean=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOKE >N >>=60825872 >> >> >> >>>I always like cold hard facts....no fake polar bear >>>pictures from me! >>> >>>href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_plugins/Programs >/ >>H >>>istoricGreatLakesLevels/pages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1 >& >>Y >>>earID=19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 >, >>3 >>>5,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52, >5 >>3 >>>,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,7 >1 >>, >>>72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89 >, >>9 >>>0,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105, >1 >>0 >>>6,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0& >M >>e >>>an=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOKEN=60825872">http://www.lre.us >a >>c >>>e.army.mil/_plugins/Programs/HistoricGreatLakesLevels >/ >>p >>>ages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1&YearID=19,20,21,22,23,24 >, >>2 >>>5,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42, >4 >>3 >>>,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,6 >1 >>, >>>62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79 >, >>8 >>>0,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97, >9 >>8 >>>,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5 >, >>6 >>>,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0&Mean=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOK >E >>N >>>=60825872 >>> >>>Note that the overall Great Lakes level was lower in >>>December 1925 than it is/was in Dec 2006 and also >>>lower than the long term average. And I see no zero >>>nada info in the numbers to point to anything that >>>shows the Lakes are dropping. And yes, the Great >lakes >>>are an interconnected series of lakes. Accually, I >>>find it quite surprising that the levels are not >>>dropping with the steadly larger amounts of water >that >>>are deverted from emptying into them along with the >>>increasing amounts that are drawn from them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Just recently he posted how cold it was there in >>>>mockery of global warming. And you know, if it >hasn't >>>>happened to Oro, it hasn't happened. >>>> >>>>> "lake huron rolls, superior sings, in the rooms >>of >>>>>her ice water mansion" (gordon lighfoot, wreck of >>>>>the edmond fitzgerald) >>>>> >>>>> Lake superior's status as an "ice water >mansion" >>>>>is in danger, as ice coverage has been well below >>>>>normal for years, and increased evaporation are >>>taking >>>>>a toll. Even with winter's dramatic comback in >much >>>>>of the eastern and central part of the united >states >>>>>in february and now in april, the greatest of >>>american >>>>>lakes is approaching all time record low levels. >>All >>>>>the other great lakes are fed by superior, and >>>>>superior is about a third of the total area of the >>>>>great lakes, this may be a disaster for the entire >>>>>great lakes region in coming decades. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Lower water means lighter loads, headaches on Great >>>>>Lakes >>>>>Sunday April 15, 2007 >>>>>By EMILY FREDRIX >>>>>AP Business Writer >>>>>MILWAUKEE (AP) When Fred Shusterich looks around >the >>>>>harbor on Lake Superior, he sees things he hasn't >>>seen >>>>>in years little islands poking out of the water. >>>>> >>>>>Shusterich is concerned, like many others connected >>>to >>>>>the shipping industry, about what those islands >>>>>signify off the city of Superior in far northern >>>>>Wisconsin. >>>>> >>>>>``I think it may be another very poor year if this >>>>>drought continues as far as water levels,'' he >said. >>>>> >>>>>Now's the time when harbors along the Great Lakes >>>>>Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario and Erie thaw >and >>>>>shipping begins, carrying 10 percent of the >>country's >>>>>waterborne cargo. >>>>> >>>>>But excitement over the shipping season is being >>>>>replaced with frustration over low water levels, >>>which >>>>>is forcing shippers to lighten their loads so they >>>can >>>>>move safely into harbors. >>>>> >>>>>The lighter loads sometimes hundreds of tons per >>ship >>>>>turn into headaches for suppliers that send their >>>>>goods on vessels, shippers and companies whose >>orders >>>>>come up short. >>>>> >>>>>Midwest Energy Resources, the coal supplier where >>>>>Shusterich is president, just sent out its first >>>>>vessel of the season with a load just under 60,000 >>>>>tons, shy of a typical 62,000-ton shipment, he >said. >>>>> >>>>>Shippers don't expect the situation to improve >soon. >>>A >>>>>warmer-than-normal winter this year means more >>>>>evaporation because the lakes aren't protected by >>ice >>>>>cover. They also worry about dredging the process >by >>>>>which sand, silt and other debris are removed from >>>>>harbors. Dredging doesn't solve the problem of low >>>>>water levels. But it does give ships wiggle room to >>>>>carry more weight. >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately, the federal government, which pays >>for >>>>>most of the harbor dredging, can't keep up with >>>>>demand, said Glen Nekvasil, vice president of >>>>>corporate communications for the Lake Carriers' >>>>>Association, a trade group for shippers on the >Great >>>>>Lakes. >>>>> >>>>>For every inch the lakes recede, ships must reduce >>>>>their loads between 50 and 270 tons, he said. At >the >>>>>end of last season, with waters particularly low on >>>>>Lake Superior, ships lost about 8,000 tons per trip >>>>>about 11 percent of their carrying capacity, he >>said. >>>>> >>>>>``Every ton has an impact. These companies, they >>earn >>>>>their living carrying cargo, so every lost ton of >>>>>cargo is lost revenue,'' Nekvasil said. >>>>> >>>>>Shipping is big business. Last year, a little more >>>>>than 1 billion tons of goods such as iron ore, coal >>>>>and limestone, were waterborne in the U.S., he >said. >>>>>Shippers on the Great Lakes hauled 110 million tons >>>of >>>>>cargo, with more than half of that iron ore. >>>>> >>>>>Back in the late 1990s, shippers hauled as much as >>>125 >>>>>million tons of cargo a year on the Great Lakes. >>Last >>>>>year's numbers are at least partially due to the >low >>>>>water levels, but the steel industry which uses >iron >>>>>ore has been slow, too, Nekvasil said. The coal >>trade >>>>>has been steady and the roughly 70 ships in the >U.S. >>>>>fleet regularly sail, he said. >>>>> >>>>>Water levels have slipped for years and the >forecast >>>>>isn't getting any better. Lakes Erie and Ontario >are >>>>>faring better than the others this year, said Scott >>>>>Thieme, chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' >>>>>hydraulics and hydrology office in Detroit. But >>>>>numbers show they're still lower than last year. >>>>> >>>>>Lake Superior is within a few inches of its record >>>low >>>>>599.5 feet deep, set in 1926. It's now about a foot >>>>>lower than last year and projections for this >summer >>>>>are that it'll get even lower. >>>>> >>>>>It's unclear how long the other areas will maintain >>>>>levels above record lows, because all the lakes are >>>>>connected, Thieme said. >>>>> >>>>>``The lakes are so large that there's such a huge >>>>>volume of water. It takes a long time for some of >>>>>these impacts to move through the system with them >>>all >>>>>being linked,'' he said. >>>>> >>>>>One way to combat it is to dredge so vessels can >get >>>>>in. This year the Corps of Engineers will spend $20 >>>>>million on dredging projects in the Great Lakes >>>>>region, up from $19 million last year. But that >>>>>increase is due to projects on Chicago commercial >>>>>ports, which are not dredged as often, said Angie >>>>>Mundell, project manager for operations for the >>corps >>>>>in Detroit. >>>>> >>>>>Nekvasil's group argues the government should >>>spending >>>>>more. >>>>> >>>>>``This is a major issue for the industry. It's our >>>>>primary focus right now,'' he said. >>>>> >>>>>Grain exporter Chicago and Illinois River Marketing >>>>>isn't waiting for the government to dredge its >>harbor >>>>>in Milwaukee. Richard Blaylock, manager at the >>>>>company's site, said the company spent $200,000 in >>>two >>>>>years to dredge its own spot off the Milwaukee >>>Harbor. >>>>> >>>>>With shipping season just under way, he's not sure >>if >>>>>the company will have to dredge for a third year in >>a >>>>>row. >>>>> >>>>>``Dredging is expensive and I'd like not to have to >>>do >>>>>it,'' Blaylock said. >>>>> >>>>>Iron ore mining company Cleveland Cliffs will >simply >>>>>hire more ships to carry its ore to customers like >>>>>steel plants throughout the region, said Dana >Byrne, >>>>>vice president of public affairs for the >>>>>Cleveland-based company. >>>>> >>>>>The dwindling water levels mean a typical vessel >>>>>carrying between 25,000 and 30,000 tons will have >to >>>>>reduce its load by 1,000 tons per trip, he said. >>>>> >>>>>``We're going to move the tons we need to move and >>>>>we'll just have to do it,'' Byrne said. ``It's just >>>>>going to take more trips and added cost.'' >>>>> >>>>>Shusterich's company, Midwest Energy Resources, >>plans >>>>>to contract to have 450 ships again this year. He >>>said >>>>>it'll continue to serve customers, like electric >>>>>utilities and industrial companies, by rail and >>truck >>>>>when it can. >>>>> >>>>>``When we're running at the levels we're running, >it >>>>>means you need more vessels to carry the same >amount >>>>>of cargo,'' he said. ``But at some point you run >out >>>>>of vessels.'' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On the Net: >>>>> >>>>>U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes: >>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes">htt >p >>: >>>/ >>>>/ >>>>>www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes >>>>> >>>>>Lake Carriers' Association: >target=_blank rel=nofollow >>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>>>target=_blank >>>>>href="http://www.lcaships.com">http://www.lcaships. >c >>o >>>m >>>>< >>>>>/a> >>>>> >>>>>(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights >>>>>Reserved.) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Is that the same Army that managed to sink New Orleans? n/t (NT) | L. | 07:15:53 04/24/07 Tue |